United States v. Michael Evans, 851 F.3d 830

Victim reported a rape and later told police the attacker was nearby at a bus stop; she identified him by similar height/build/skin tone and distinctive red Adidas shoes and mentioned a one-to-two-inch scar above the navel and tattoos on hands/neck.
Officers located and detained Michael L. Evans at the bus stop; he denied involvement and allowed officers to inspect his abdomen.
Sergeant Swoboda observed a long vertical abdominal marking and concluded it was a scar; Evans was arrested for rape and searched incident to arrest, revealing a Lorcin .380 handgun and two keys.
Police did not (a) have the victim view Evans up close, (b) check Evans’s phone against the number that texted the victim, (c) test the keys on the apartment door, or (d) ask the manager whether a person named Octavio/Octovi lived there.
The district court found the victim’s identification equivocal and that Evans lacked the specific identifying features (the small scar above the navel and tattoos) the victim described; it suppressed the firearm as the arrest lacked probable cause.
The government appealed; the Eighth Circuit affirmed suppression, holding officers lacked probable cause given significant exculpatory evidence and a failure to perform minimal further investigation.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether officers had probable cause to arrest Evans for rape	Victim identified Evans as attacker by clothing, stature, and a scar; additional circumstantial facts (presence near scene, found condom at scene) supported probable cause	Officers had sufficient basis to arrest based on the victim’s identification and investigative observations	No; probable cause lacking because key identifying features were inconsistent and officers failed to pursue minimal, reasonable follow-up that could have exonerated Evans

United States v. Quintero, 648 F.3d 660 (8th Cir. 2011) (standard of review for suppression rulings)
United States v. Winarske, 715 F.3d 1063 (8th Cir. 2013) (warrantless arrest reasonable with probable cause)
Kuehl v. Burtis, 173 F.3d 646 (8th Cir. 1999) (totality-of-circumstances and duty to investigate exculpatory evidence)
United States v. Woolbright, 831 F.2d 1390 (8th Cir. 1987) (officers must conduct reasonably thorough investigation before arrest absent exigency)
Bigford v. Taylor, 834 F.2d 1213 (5th Cir. 1988) (probable cause absent when minimal further investigation would have exonerated suspect)
Olinger v. Larson, 134 F.3d 1362 (8th Cir. 1998) (similarities to suspect may support probable cause when combined with suspicious conduct)
Brodnicki v. City of Omaha, 75 F.3d 1261 (8th Cir. 1996) (probable cause despite some inconsistencies in witness description)
Wilson v. Russo, 212 F.3d 781 (3d Cir. 2000) (victim identification from photo array can establish probable cause)
Clay v. Conlee, 815 F.2d 1164 (8th Cir. 1987) (longstanding acquaintance’s positive ID can support probable cause)